Rousseau Nature

623 Words2 Pages

However, Rousseau's views are somewhat different from him. Rousseau thought that human nature was good, but later it was changed by society. For Rousseau, with the formation of political society, the emergence of greed and inequality is not part of the natural state of mankind. In Rousseau's description of the natural state, people are solitary, but they do not be cruel to others. “In this state man lives in virtue and innocence. They were sociable and possess innate virtues that enabled them to live in cooperation with others without the need of laws or authority” (Second Discourse 89). In this state, people are like animal, looking for ways to survive. Therefore, the rest of us are not enemies but fellows, have a sort of cooperation and collaboration for surviving together. Rousseau's view is related to the four characteristics of …show more content…

All in all, they are dependent on each other, assist each other, and fight against the conditions of nature.
In summary, there are three differences between their descriptions of the state of nature. First, Hobbes believes that nature is like war, full of danger and fear. And Rousseau believed that the state of nature was good, and that human beings would cooperate with each other to survive. Secondly, Hobbes believes that people will be happier when they are out of their natural state, and the formation of political societies as a need for stability, peace and order by getting rid of natural state. Rousseau considers the formation of political societies a need from growing population and changing life conditions. Rousseau believed that this was the cause of inequality, because human beings became

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of Alexis Rockman's Kapok Tree

    814 Words  | 2 Pages

    They come in various shapes, sizes, and colors, and are different in so many ways, but in the end, they all need each other to survive. This is the beauty of nature, in its most purest form, it is the perfect symbiotic

    Read More

  • Rousseau's View of Humanity

    1102 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rousseau writes that humanity is a mixture of good and evil. There are people who follow the education of nature and become self-reliant individuals. There are also those who tamper with nature and deprive individuals of their freedoms. They are the evil ones. Rousseau held such a position because he was raised much in the manner he wrote of, with no formal education until his twenties. His work is a production of the Enlightenment. Although he was unaware of psychology, his views on how to educate and raise a child are studied in current theories of human development. Rousseau had a mixed view if humanity was good or evil.

    Read More

  • Golding vs. Rousseau

    1085 Words  | 3 Pages

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a great philosopher who lived in the Enlightenment. He was a very influential philosopher and “Thinker” he has written many books including The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Rousseau’s theory was in essence that humans were created naturally pure and innocent but over time and new technologies become more evil. He had thought that in the very first light of man he was completely innocent, a being who had no intention to harm anyone else. However as time progressed and the growing capacity for man increased and the

    Read More

  • Lord of the Flies

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a man of philosophy, music, and literature. His philosophy was that humanity will do what’s best for the state as a whole, rather than the general “every man for himself” philosophy. He says that while we do have a piece of that individualistic philosophy, it is when they are in a healthy state that they value fairly the collective good for everyone around them, and express the general sense of good will. Rousseau believes that people will recognize that the will of all is the common good, but that in itself raises the questions as to the validity ...

    Read More

  • Equality: Comparing Hobbes and Locke

    2000 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hobbes and Locke’s each have different ideologies of man’s state of nature that develops their ideal form of government. They do however have similar ideas, such as how man is born with a perfect state of equality that is before any form of government and social contract. Scarcity of goods ultimately leads to Hobbes and Locke’s different states of nature that shapes their two different ideal governments because Hobbes believes that scarcity of goods will bring about a constant state of war, competition, and greed of man that cannot be controlled without a absolute sovereign as government while Locke believes that with reasoning and a unified government, man will succeed in self preservation of himself and others.

    Read More

  • Rousseau Perfectibility Analysis

    1222 Words  | 3 Pages

    The former, a product of the human empathy and responsible for the preference of seeing no harm come to other living creatures so long at the latter is maintained. Together these maxims form the basis of the savage man’s natural state and, by extension, his tenancy of gentleness towards his fellow man (121). The civilised man, in contrast, comes to be as a result of “perfectibility”. Perfectibility, according to Rousseau is an innate human attribute to want to learn and better oneself, particularly to overcome obstacles in one’s environment. Rousseau’s description of perfectibility implies that the conditions of one’s environment have a direct influence over their character and that one can therefore deduce that regardless of man’s natural gentleness, he can develop the capacity to be cruel if so prompted by elements in his environment. Such a prompt comes as man looks to collaborate with others out of mutual self-interest. Rousseau notes that, “their connections become more intimate and extensive … there arose on one side vanity and contempt, on the other envy and shame … Men no sooner began to set a value upon each other, and know what esteem was, than each laid claim to it … It

    Read More

  • Rousseau and Marx: Property and Inequality

    1831 Words  | 4 Pages

    In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Rousseau, The State of Nature

    1256 Words  | 3 Pages

    Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different, even opposing, views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role in their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things are far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure.

    Read More

  • Rousseau’s: State of Nature and Social Contract

    1176 Words  | 3 Pages

    One of the interesting things about Rousseau was that he had different views than previous philosophers, such as Hume and Locke, on the state of nature. In Rousseau’s point of view, humans in the state of nature would be most like a noble savage. What this means is that Rousseau believed that in the state of nature humans are naturally good, and are lead by basic appetites or sentiments. This would also be a prehistoric place where humans would not have discovered rationality or morality. This mainly applies because Rousseau believes that these prehistoric humans made, as later discussed, decisions based on sentiment and not on reason, thus since morality requires the ability to choose between right and wrong it would be impossible to be moral.

    Read More

  • Rousseau's Theory Of Alienation

    1222 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rousseau’s version of the social contract depends on his characteristics of “the state of nature”. Rousseau once said “Man is born

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes And Jean Jacques Rousseau And The State Of Nature

    1865 Words  | 4 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau were both influential philosophers with two completely different theories about the nature of human beings. While Hobbes’s’ theory was based upon the assumption that human nature was naturally born competitive, violent, and seeking power, Rousseau viewed human nature as good and pure, only until society corrupts it. Although Hobbes and Rousseau both viewed the state of nature quite differently, both their theories were similarly based on the image of how society was, before political government existed. The argument I would like to make is the idea that Hobbes’s vision and beliefs of human nature from the State of Nature is profoundly more logical and realistic than of Rousseau’s. To be human is to desire

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2134 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists’ discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke’s description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation”. Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which “teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions,” are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke’s Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful.

    Read More

  • General Will and Rousseau's Social Contract

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    By submitting himself to the power of a sovereign, man would be protected by that same power, thereby gaining his liberty. Rousseau’s version of the state of nature differs greatly. He makes no mention of the constant fear which Hobbes believed would control man’s life in the state of nature, rather he describes the setting as pleasant and peaceful. He described the people in this primitive state as living free, healthy, honest and happy lives, and felt that man was timid, and would always avoid conflict, rather than seek it out. Building from this favorable description of the state of nature, why would man want to enter into a social contract of any kind? If Rousseau was so fond of the state of nature, why would he be advocating any form of social organization? The answer is two fold. Firstly, Rousseau recognized that 18th century Europe was indeed very civilized, and that it would be impossible for man to shake off these chains and return to a state of nature.

    Read More

  • Similarities Between Hobbes Locke And Rousseau

    560 Words  | 2 Pages

    This indicates that the community will only be peaceful when the people are in the state of nature. However, this questions why a government is created if the result will only cause the government to be corrupt. He also believes that there are interest groups that will try to influence the government into supporting what they believe in. Rousseau sees that the people will only be involved in the government is they choose to participate in the voting. He also says that when the people are together as a collective, they work and are viewed differently compared to when they are as individuals. Although Rousseau does understand both Hobbes and Locke’s theories, it makes the audience wonder why he didn’t fully support the theory of leaving people in the state of nature. By doing so, it would allow the people to continue having individual freedom without causing a state of

    Read More

More about Rousseau Nature

Open Document